Robert A. Blair

The landlord appealed a judgment granting the tenant relief from forfeiture and declaring a valid lease renewal.

The tenant had failed to provide written notice to renew the commercial lease but had engaged in oral and written negotiations with the landlord.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the landlord had waived the written notice requirement and that the landlord's subsequent correspondence did not clearly revoke the offer to renew, which the tenant validly accepted.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 54 months for offences including kidnapping, robbery, and extortion of an 84-year-old woman.

He argued the trial judge erred in calculating pre-trial custody credit by treating 13.5 months spent in custody as time served on a conditional sentence rather than pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the breach hearing was delayed at the appellant's instance and the sentence was lenient given the gravity of the offences.

The Court also noted the trial judge erred in referring to 'vengeance' in sentencing, but this did not render the sentence unfit.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding spousal support and the finding of an unconditional gift of a one-half interest in joint bank accounts and investment funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to admit fresh evidence and finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of legal principles.

The trial judge's calculation of the gift amounts and the quantum of spousal support were upheld.

The appellant appealed an order striking out portions of his Amended Statement of Claim on the basis of res judicata, abuse of process, or vexatious proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, noting that claims for lost income as a lawyer lacked an air of reality since the appellant had been disbarred for misappropriation of trust funds.

The court also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding the motions judge's jurisdiction to award costs and allegations of bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motions to set aside a 1983 order terminating his tenancy.

He argued the original order was obtained by fraud because the corporate landlord had changed its name but had not registered the name change on title at the time of the application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the lands were owned by the same corporate entity at all relevant times and the failure to register the name change did not constitute a fraud on the court.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding a failure to establish causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and agreeing that the appellant failed to establish the necessary element of causation.

The plaintiff, a large gold producer, was the target of a vicious and prolonged Internet defamation campaign by the defendant.

The defendant posted hundreds of false and malicious messages on various financial message boards accusing the plaintiff of fraud, tax evasion, and other crimes.

The trial judge awarded $15,000 in general damages and dismissed claims for punitive damages and injunctive relief.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge failed to appreciate the unique, instantaneous, and borderless nature of Internet defamation.

The Court increased general damages to $75,000, awarded $50,000 in punitive damages, and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing further defamatory statements.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to conduct the exercise prescribed in a previous order.

As the Court of Appeal could not make the requisite determination on the material before it, the appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of an equipment rental contract.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in calculating the hours the respondent would have worked and in failing to credit a prior payment.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's finding of 1000 hours of work, as it was supported by evidence including time cards and witness testimony.

However, the Court agreed the trial judge erred by not crediting a $2,990 payment made for preparation work.

The judgment was varied downward to correct this and a minor arithmetical error, but the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant, CGU Insurance Company of Canada, appealed a judgment finding its policy to be a primary policy.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court, refining the determination to classify the CGU policy as a primary policy with an excess coverage clause.

The court confirmed that a primary policy with excess coverage ranks ahead of a true umbrella policy, such as the Lombard policy.

The court also rejected arguments regarding standing and the appropriateness of proceeding by application.

The appeal was dismissed with a minor variation to the judgment's wording.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding their right to recovery under a bond.

The Court of Appeal held that naming the appellants on the bond did not give them an independent right to recovery under their lending agreements.

The court declined to interfere with the motion judge's interpretation of the inter-lender agreement and dismissed the appeals with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons and finding it was an appropriate case for summary judgment.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $8,000.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for robbery and weapons offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding surveillance video evidence, hearsay evidence of a photo line-up identification, post-offence flight, and reasonable doubt arising from an absence of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge and noting that the identification evidence was properly handled.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in imposing a consecutive sentence for the weapons offence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against Mercedes-Benz Credit of Canada.

The appellant alleged that Mercedes improperly interfered with his negotiations with his insurer regarding a truck damaged by fire, causing a decrease in the truck's value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's claim that Mercedes improperly interfered, as Mercedes had a legitimate interest in the vehicle and the insurance proceeds.

The employers appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employers argued the plaintiff was dismissed for just cause because she gave herself and another employee unauthorized salary and vacation pay increases.

The trial judge found the conduct was an indiscretion rather than dishonesty and served as a pretext for a planned dismissal.

Applying the McKinley contextual analysis, the trial judge concluded the employers failed to prove just cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal on damages and the employers' appeal on the dismissed counterclaim were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing his claims for an accounting of partnership profits from 1990 to 2000 and damages for mental distress against two of his former law partners.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of these claims, finding no error by the motions judge, except regarding the claim for an accounting for the period from January 2000 to July 2001, which the appellant was permitted to pursue.

A cross-appeal seeking to dismiss the claim against a third partner for alleged abusive conduct was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition, arguing that sections 32(1) and 34 of the Extradition Act are unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the constitutional issue had already been decided against the appellant's position in a previous decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order surrendering him to the United States.

He argued that the Minister's letter ordering surrender did not give adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that while the reasons were perfunctory, they were adequate.

The Minister considered the applicant's section 6 Charter rights, health concerns, and the Cotroni factors, which overwhelmingly pointed to prosecution in the United States.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing it was unfit.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the sentence was at the bottom end of the range but noted the trial judge had valid reasons for it.

Even assuming the sentence was unfit, the Court held it was not in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the respondent, citing a very positive post-sentence report, the respondent's youthfulness, and the importance of rehabilitation.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.